Donna Laframboise pens an interesting article about how the sceptical Blogger will eventually defeat the the vastly wealthy big guns of AGW proponents.
Of course the AGW’s spread disinformation about us sceptical bloggers because they think that we are the same as them.
Another day, another smarmy accusation that [click each word for a separate example] people who are skeptical of climate change are being funded by a shadowy conspiracy connected in one manner or another to big oil, big coal, big tobacco or – horror of horrors – right-wing think tanks.
However she rightly points out that your humble bloggers against the premise of AGW, are mostly self funded. operating without any outside support.
Compare and contrast to how independent individuals of utterly modest means from all over the world currently behave. They sign up to a service like Blogger.com (which is owned by Google) and, within a few hours at most, for no cost whatsoever, have launched themselves as a blogger. Alternatively, for well under $10 in hosting fees a month, they can publish their own website.
For no money, therefore, climate skeptics in the early 21st century are in a position to theoretically communicate online with as many people as is Greenpeace. From their basements and their attics, in often non-trendy geographical locations, it isn’t their funding that matters – it’s their skill sets.
In that last sentence she sums up with who these dastardly bloggers are.
In my case I was a marine engineer for 43 years. Over that time as an engineer I learnt to deal in hard facts. If I repaired machinery, I had to make sure I did it correctly. If someone had observed my work practise and computer modelled it, with the result that I had carried out the work with a 90% chance of the machinery working I would probably have hit him.
If you’re on a ship, you have to get it right, not 90% right. People die with that sort of reasoning.
Us sceptical bloggers are I think like a swarm of bees with no queen. You can swat one but the others will sting you.
Go on read her http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/22/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate-environmentalists/whole article.
"If someone had observed my work practise and computer modelled it, with the result that I had carried out the work with a 90% chance of the machinery working ..........
ReplyDelete.........you have to get it right, not 90% right. People die with that sort of reasoning."
It's not only poor modelling of marine machinery maintenance hat can kill:-
Erroneous Climate Models have resulted in rising energy bills, due in major part by the very high subsidies paid to 'green' producers, lead to quantifiable fuel poverty deaths.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312
Well I certainly haven't had any funding. Oi! Where's my payola, bribe, moolah etc.
ReplyDeleteThis all resolved itself very simply for me on the day the police turned up at Tallbloke's house. Clearly, if UEA were more worried about catching a leaker rather than the substance of what was exposed, then they were protecting their funding rather than their scientific reputation.
Even if I didn't have an idea about the science this alone would tell me that I was dealing with manipulators who had secrets to hide, and that ain't science.